Mozilla - From Browser to Desktop Environment? 68
An anonymous reader asks: "A while ago OEone released a thingy called Penzilla which was basically a Mozilla desktop environment like GNOME or KDE. Everything was written in either DHTML or XUL and ran within the Gecko engine. Recently a new project, Robin was released that is basically a desktop running within Mozilla using XUL as well. There is NetWindows that attempts something similar for more interactive web applications. What advantages would a 100% Mozilla engine desktop hold and what are the disadvantages compared to much more complex environments such as GNOME or KDE? Is a Mozilla desktop possibly more elegant or efficient for the typical user? Is the XUL runtime environment more robust than troublesome C/C++ widgets? It seems like most applications could make the transition as the growing collection of Firebird extensions like ChatZilla and Gnusto and have shown."
Re:First Post (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Post (Score:2)
I think there is a slight difference. With MS, the desktop became the browser. Which allowed many bugs into the system. The reason is probably the origional desktop was never ment to be seen on an open network.
With Mozilla, the gecko engine and XUL and such is a sturdy platform (same as gtk or qt). So adding a module that creates a start button that runs 'xterm -e mozilla-firefox' when you click on it, doesn't seem the same a
Let's see... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why treat mozilla differently?
No seriously, I imagine the goal is that since mozilla is cross-platform and has a bunch of nifty features, a full-blown desktop written in it would be able to compete with java's desktop system for thin clients and similar ideas(probably with great success, as while Mozilla itself is fairly large, it's also quite a capable system, and fairly self-contained).
It has many features modern thin clients would need or at the very least, like to have(software updates downloaded from the web, ssl/tls based security, multiple user profiles), it supports most "thin clients" activities except for document production(by itself: the ibm-related announcement on slashdot today, about a web-available office suite makes that a non-issue) With the proper XUL environment available, you have almost an os-toolkit, themable/skinnable for those so enclined... What more could you want? (Yes you need an OS under it, but at least, you're not limited to the choice of any particular one)
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with integrating your browser with your desktop. It's when you do so in a way that can't be undone to leverage your monopoly position to kill off a competitor that it becomes bad.
Who the hell modded that insightful?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:1)
This has nothing to do with correcting anybody. The typical Slashdot response to these sort of things is if Microsoft does it, it's automatically bad for reasons that are invented later, but when Mozilla does it, everybody's suddenly an optimist. My original post was about attitudes towards MS, not about the actual details of what's different and why. Don't bother 'correcting' me on something I didn't even bring up.
Re:Let's see... (Score:2)
Re:Let's see... (Score:2)
unnecessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:unnecessary (Score:2)
XUL is an interface building language (much like GTK+ and Qt), and so "should we build interfaces in XUL?" is valid and does not violate the principle you mention. Apps with XUL interfaces would need a runtime, and this is no different from the GTK libs or the Qt libs being loaded when applications based on those frameworks are run.
That said, I am not sure what the limitations of XUL are. How does it compare to Microsoft's XAML, for instance in terms of functionality?
Re:unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
The point behind Mozilla always was to have a platform from which people could create full fledged cross-platform applications using CSS, HTML, ECMAscript and XML.
It just so happens that the first major application was a web browser.
I'm starting to subtly push taking advantage of Mozilla's front end capibilities within my company's application, myself.
Re:unnecessary (Score:2)
Re:unnecessary (Score:2)
The only advantage the C.H.E.X. architecture has is that it enables PHBs to terminate the employment of genuine software developers and replace them with web "developers".
I'm currently having to work on a C.H.E.X. application and it is truly painful. Every software rule has been broken. Every usab
Everythign old is new again! (Score:2)
Enter the web and something like Mozilla. In a corperate environment database apps are all the rage. Web programming neatly fits the design models of someth
Re:Everythign old is new again! (Score:2)
As someone who doesn't do much client-server programming, I still fail to understand why moving to the C.H.E.X. client-server architecture adds anything.
Like I said before, a Mozilla "application" would work much the same way only prettier!
Is it any "prettier" than a native win32, Aqua, GTK+, or Qt application?
While I can certainly understand moving a "green screen" Cobol application to a web interface, it still boggles my mind why people think C.H.E.X. is
Re:Everythign old is new again! (Score:2)
IT hates to deploy an application of dozens to thousands of computers over hundreds of offices.
Much easier to have everything on the server rather than having to program self-updates.
The alternative, of course, is to install X-Windows on every system so that they can all run clients off a central UNIX box. This has its own political challenges, especially in a unix-only setup.
Re:Everythign old is new again! (Score:2)
Fingers faster than brain today.
Re:unnecessary (Score:1)
Re:unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
It fell apart, because "each tool" has to work with every other tool in existance.
Mozilla (and OpenOffice, Gnome, and KDE) are necessary corrections to the "one tool one thing" paradigm. Each project has multiple tools in it, and can be used to do many differnet things--but each tool was designed to be used with a specific set of other tools, and the tool authors are upfront and honest about this.
And for those of us who AREN'T tool authors, getting a "thing" working is as simple as grabbing a toolbox from Sears.
Re:unnecessary (Score:1)
Re:unnecessary (Score:3, Interesting)
You make it sound like this is impossible to achieve. All that you need is a well defined API. What do traditional unix command line tools all have in common and use to communicate with eachother with? STDIN, STDOUT and STDERR!
Sure, for GUIs you need a bit more: copy and paste and drag and drop, and maybe something along the lines of Mac OS X's "Services" but I don't think the unix "each tool does one thing well" paradigm
Well-defined APIs? (Score:2)
Having Mozilla as a platform means talking to a well-defined API. Is the platform Windows or UNIX? Doesn't matter; use the Mozilla API. Want MFC/DirectX as your widget rendering engine or GTK+? Doesn't matter; use the Mozilla API.
Just STDIN et al., eh? What about libssl? What about libc? What about libgthread? You are comparing apples and oranges. When you use an component in Mozilla that's writt
Re:unnecessary (Score:3, Insightful)
What you are saying doesn't really make sense. It's like blaming QT or GTK+ for every app ever produced with them.
Jedidiah
Re:unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:unnecessary (Score:2)
Well, I think it has become more like "make each library do one thing and do it well".
A a certain point in time, you will have to integrate those tools into an application. Now if you do this using separate programs and a script, or separate libraries and a program, what is the difference ?
Robin Homepage is trippy (Score:2)
Re:Robin Homepage is trippy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Robin Homepage is trippy (Score:2)
Re:Robin Homepage is trippy (Score:1)
this stiff is... (Score:1)
what else could you do with this? it's just so.... interesting, write a web page that becomes a virtual computer. Much coolness el grande. Hmm, a super proxy. hey! I'm gonna use moxula to goto robin to goto moxula then post back, see if it works....
it hangs for me (Score:1)
it is very nice though, shows some cool thinking.
HTML on Steroids (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, the C++ code that implements the scrollbar, or button, or whatever isn't going away, it's just being described in a standard manner. I guess that gives the application more portability, in theory.
To switch gears with some thoughts on XUL (and XUL like technologies)... The other day I was reading how interesting XUL was on phpPatterns [phppatterns.com] and using it to build a web-based desktop-like application. The one example people like to point to is that AmazonBrowser. Perhaps the greatest potential for these XUL like languages is for those web features we have a tough time building today.
Whoever thought of HTML frames probably wanted XUL, but knew that nothing like it could be done right now, so frames were a cheap navigational system that could provide a semi-familiar GUI to end users in that only the "content pane" gets updated.
HTML interfaces will still be around. Not only because they're still a great mechanism for internet information display, but because people are used to them. They're used to website design, they like the way it is. XUL-like apps will probably be most used as embedded application interfaces for managing devices... at least in the beginning.
Re:HTML on Steroids (Score:3, Informative)
You can see JSRS in action on my newsbot [memigo.com], where it lets you rate articles dynamically without re-loading
Re:HTML on Steroids (Score:2)
Mozilla Desktop ~= Windows, not UNIX (Score:2)
People here on slashdot are always complaining about the integration of internet explorer with windows for two primary reasons. The first is that you have no choice regarding whether or not you want to use the windows GUI with IE if you want to use windows. The second reason, which i
Re:Mozilla Desktop ~= Windows, not UNIX (Score:1)
The first is that you have no choice regarding whether or not you want to use the windows GUI with IE if you want to use windows.
Valid. If Mozilla = Windows. However it doesn't, and Choice remains. Don't want to use Mozilla's integrated Desktop/browser? Great! we have just the thing for you: KDE.
Your second Point:
The second reason, which is relevant here, is that there's really no good reason why _any_ web browser should be integrated with the desktop environment. Completely apart f
Will never work... (Score:3, Funny)
However, it could possibly be saved by a talking paperclip, or maybe a talking gecko that doesn't complain about car insurance.
Re:Will never work... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Will never work... (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?q=mozilla+rss
It's stuff like this that is making me realize that (many) things can be just "a part of the browser"
--Robert
Re:Will never work... (Score:2)
AI bot capable of running software and internet queries.... Could be done right.
Image, a customized ALICE bot, with a highly modified AIML set to be very secretary/computer held desk-ish... Only talks when spoken too, period... Was capable of executing basic commands('Computer, ping google', would execute 'ping www.google.com')... Or do a safari/watson(mac users know this) type of internet browser that can retrieve and format airline inf
Mozilla (Score:5, Funny)
soviet russia (Score:1, Funny)
does jamie zawinski read slashdot anymore?? (Score:2)
Way too fat. (Score:2)
Additionally, there is the issue of stability. Not to knock Mozilla but, it isn't perfect. It's good but, not perfect. Speed is subjective but, I doubt that anyone would claim that Mozilla is
Re:Way too fat. (Score:2)
Every release of Mozilla for quite some time (Since 1.1 I'd say) has had a faster load time and less bloat.. go read the changelogs if you don't believe me.
The new Moz family applications are proving grounds for features which may be re-integrated into the main Mozilla tree, as well as being useful stand-alone apps.
your desktop might already be a browser (Score:2, Interesting)
I think with Win95 OSR2, a lot of the UI was rewritten. I remember hearing that help was redone as HTML, and at least some of those extended views we see in 2000 and XP is done in HTML. Anyone remember Active Desktop? My take on it was it was just one or more MSHTML controls hosted in the explorer window. Neat
browser-based, opensrc, application alternatives (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll wait for some full digits now... (Score:1, Offtopic)
KDE's showing (Score:2)
You get:
Both share the following:
Additionally, they have a qt-only port which is new, and they will be coming out with a win32 version. This means that you can now right x-platform javascript applications tha